Moore v. Ferguson
2012 Ohio 6087
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Moore (plaintiff) appeals a trial-court order granting Ferguson’s (defendant) motion to compel production of medical records and signed authorizations; the dispute centers on physician-patient privilege and the scope of discovery.
- Moore was injured in a motor-vehicle collision involving a vehicle owned by Ames; suit asserted negligence, negligent entrustment, and UIM claims (the latter dismissed).
- Moore produced some medical records and billing statements, but Ferguson sought broader post-incident records and signed releases.
- The trial court granted the motion to compel, ordering Moore to sign releases or provide complete records within seven days.
- Moore appeals on four assignments of error challenging the breadth and mechanism of the compelled production, including the absence of in-camera review and potential waivers of privilege.
- This is an accelerated-calendar appeal governed by App.R. 11.1 and 12(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery of Moore’s complete medical records. | Moore argues records beyond causally related injuries are privileged. | Ferguson seeks records related to injuries alleged and causally connected to the case. | Yes, in part; the court requires in-camera review and a privilege log to determine relevancy and waiver. |
| Whether releasing records to counsel without privilege safeguards was proper. | Release to counsel without mechanism for privilege determination is overbroad. | Authorized to receive records; waiver can apply. | Appellate court remands for in-camera review and privilege-log-based screening. |
| Whether the physician-patient privilege should be interpreted narrowly or waived for discovery. | Privilege remains intact for records not causally/historically related to injuries. | Waiver and broader discovery may be necessary to defend case. | Privilege must be strictly construed; records must be limited to related injuries with in-camera screening. |
| Whether the protective/order and disposition of costs were proper. | Protective order is required to limit disclosure. | Motion to compel appropriate given relevance. | Remanded for further proceedings consistent with privilege determinations; costs to appellee. |
Key Cases Cited
- Folmar v. Griffin, 166 Ohio App.3d 154 (2006-Ohio-1849) (standard for abuse of discretion in discovery; physician-patient privilege scope)
- Wargo v. Buck, 123 Ohio App.3d 110 (7th Dist.1997) (privilege strictly construed; waiver when relevant to issues)
- Ohio State Med. Bd. v. Miller, 44 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (purpose of physician-patient privilege; broad protection)
- Wooten v. Westfield Ins. Co., 181 Ohio App.3d 2009-Ohio-494 (5th Dist.) (trial court may order in-camera review of medical records)
- Thompson v. Chapman, 2008-Ohio-2282 (5th Dist.2008) (privilege scope with respect to discovery and causally related records)
- Bogart v. Blakely, 2010-Ohio-4526 (5th Dist.2010) (discovery burdens prior to trial; privilege considerations)
- Patterson v. Zdanski, 2003-Ohio-5464 (7th Dist.2003) (privilege and discovery standards)
- The V Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467 (1998) (context for discovery and privilege considerations)